The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-01-19 Min - Board REGULAR MEETING January 19, 2011 In accordance with District Code Section 2.08.010 the TDPUD minutes are action only are recorded on a di ital format which is reserved perpetually minutes. All Board meetings art upon their re guest. &--* and made available for listeningto an interested Board of Directors of the Truckee The regular meeting of the Boa ckee Donner Public Utility District was called to order at 6:00 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Bender. ROLL CALL: Directors Joe A uera, Jeff Bender, Ron Hemig, John Hillstrom and Tony Laliotis were . g present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Steven Poncelet led the Board and public in the Pledge of Allegiance. EMPLOYEES PRESENT: NancyWaters, Bob Mescher, Steven Poncelet, Neil Kaufman, Kathy Neus, Michael Holley and Barbara Cahill CO NSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross, Kappy Mann and Jennifer Boehm OTHERS PRESENT: Juanita Schneider CHANGES TO THE AGENDA General ManagerHolley stated there were no changes to the agenda. Y PUBLIC INPUT Steve Gross stated he was speaking tonight on behalf of the Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation to remind everyone about the CivilityProject-Speak you Peace engaged in about a year ago. Al- most all public age ncies in the north Tahoe region and over a 1,000 individuals pledged to abide by the Nine Norms s of Civilitythat were identified under this project. We wanted to take this opportunity to remind those who have signed on and pledged their support to remember, to participate, to prac- tice these norms. These norms are not designed to end, but to encourage safe healthy debate, vi- brant where participants are respectful to each other in the hopes that the community as a brant deb p p whole will be civil to one another. Those Nine Norms of Civility are: • Pay Attention • Listen • Be Inclusive • Not Gossip • Show Respect • Be Agreeable • Apologize • Give Constructive Criticism • Take Responsibility Y The PUD is the onlyentity that I am aware of that has published these norms on the back of their agenda, an d I think it wonderful they have done this as it is a visual and physical reminder, and I would encourage others to follow. As we move forward into 2011, don't give up your passions, be vibrant in your debates, but you don't have to be disagreeable. 1 Minutes: January 19, 2011 DIRECTOR UPDATE 'Director Hillstrom said he would be attending din the NCPA Conference next week. Directors Aguera, din the Conference. mi Laliotis and Bender also said they will also be attending He g, with Schneider for coming to Director Hemig complimented Juanita Sc the PUD Board meetings eve wit. We don't want to miss her at the health challenges.some hea es. She has the best attendance record g meetings. CONSENT CALENDAR RECEIVE AND ACCEPT ANNUAL REPORTS a) Safety activities for the past year UD b 2010 Easements Recorded in favor of the TDP c) Use of the Board room b outside organizations in 2010 d) Encroachment Permits CONSIDERATION OF A PROVIDER FOR REAL ESTATE LISTING SERVICES This item in- vo lves contract for real estate sales and marketing for 14630 Glenshire Drive, APN 49-011-31. Director Hillstrom moved, and Dire g Director A uera seconded, that the Board approve the consent calendar. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED ACTION ITEM NER This involves the appointment AN NCPA COMMISSIONER CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING of a commissioner to attend Northern California Power Association meetings. 9 Director Hillstrom moved, and Director A uera seconded, that the Board appoint Director Tony Laliotis as the NCPA Commissioner; ioner• and assign Director John Hillstrom and Stephen Hollabaugh as the Alternate Commissioners. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice vote. SO MOVED WORKSHOPS DISCUSSION REGARDING A LOCAL PRO CUREMENT POLICY This items involves a discus- sion about a local procurement policy. Bob Mescher gave a presentation: 3.08 • Purchasing procedure defined in District Code Chapter o Types of procurements o Commodities or equipment o Service contracts (Public Works and other service contracts) o Joint purchasing with the State and other public agencies o Special services o Consulting services o Emergencies o Annual procurements are about $10 million procurement policy Board requested staff to investigate the possibility of a local preference p y • Eligible procurements (about$2 million annually) o Commodities or equipment up to $10,000 2 Minutes: January 19, 2011 o Public works contracts up to $15,000 o Other service contracts o Special services o Consulting services o Emergencies • What are other agencies doing? in sales and property taxes California counties and cities offer a local preference, expecting o to increase o Counties typically offer prefere nce of 5% of contract cost including: Nevada County, Placer County, Sierra County nce based on offers refere contribution to local sales tax o Town of Truckee p es do not have written local preference procurement policies o Nine neighboring local agenci ■ Alpine Springs County Water District ■ North Tahoe Public Utility District ■ Northstar Community Service District ■ Placer County Water Authority ■ Squaw Valley Public Service District ■ Tahoe City Public Utility District ■ Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency ■ Truckee Fire Protection District ■ Truckee Sanitary District • Challenges o Ensuring the rate payers benefit o Defining "local" ■ Geographic parameters ■ Business license location ■ Location of residence of employees/owner ■ Rate payer: Business, Business owner, Employees o Defining the preference adjustment ■ Percentage of contract cost of bids ■ Additional qualification points when scoring proposals • No fiscal impact associated with this workshop • Potential annual cost to the District could add up to $100,000 o Based on a 5% preference adjustment on $2 million awarded to local businesses • Indirect fiscal impact difficult to determine o Reduced competition due to a local preference adjustment99 o Admini strative costs could vary, based on complexity of defining «local There was no public input. Board and General Counsel discussion: I rovider of service bid slightly • This came up because of a service contract where a loca p a have higher than on e in Nevada and lost. It made me think this local preference policy may Y made a difference. I was real) involved with Sierra County and actually wrote their local pre- ference policy. What I heard there was it is really complicated, and there are some issues about doing this. But I think we ought to try and make it work. Make a really strong effort to see if there is some waythat we could come up with a policy that would give direction where ,..., contracts are pretty much equal to the local party. and here is the If you look at the macro in the presentation, here are the dollars available worst case. The ch ances these cases fitting into this are rather small. It will be little contracts, g and it will be locals against someone out of the area who may have a chance because of the 3 Minutes: January 19, 2011 won't be common, it will be uncommon. Therefore, it policy. It wont be the big things. It wo a lot of the other districts have should not be a big fiscal issue. Maybe a legal one. I thinkextraordinary heard about this, and decided it is not defensible. So maybe we could make an effort to try to make this work. e did to and make it a little easier. We limited the • In Sierra County, a couple things w try contract amount and after that amount, we phased out in percents. It tends to benefit smaller providers of service, some qualifiers on which is what I hope we are trying to do. We also put q the types of businesses. For example, if we said they had to be a customer in Sierra County, p they had to be in business for six months. We also said it may not be a vendor in the area, t in the area, sold by someone else, but produced locally. but it may be a producer of a produc So we had several qualifiers. ° b 5/0 it could be 1%. I.just think we ought to try and • 1 don't think it has to be phased out y work as Ion as our attorneys will let us, and then for tie figure out a way to make this g a tie breaker, and we feel they are so breakers, that is what we are looking at where we have p close and we think there is case you could pick the local instead of going out of the area. I can make as to rate payer benefits. There may be a way for us to do something the other districts do not do. t the hilosophy of it being a tie breaker. And there being Agree with Director Hemig abou P en. The justification of counties and some set the precedent if that is what needs to happ j discount. This does not towns to improve a tax base is why they claim they can offer the local disco apply to us, but that is not the onlyreason. This is a good citizen thing. There is something about a dollar spent locally mul tiplies lies out to be seven dollars. Bob's worse case is clearly so considering. To to that unlikely that it is not worth cons . at worse case, local contractors would et 9 g ' have to bid to the maximum amount above the next highest bid, and the bids are closed bids. rY It would mall in dollars. Do be a very unusual case that triggers this, So the fiscal impact is s not want to put a crazy paperwork burden on staff to not award many contracts differently.Need to do this simply and understandably. o to us if give all contracts Agree with Directors Hemig and Hillstrom. I like to go the 5/o. Cost 9 ? I be 100 000 to the District per year. Where does this figure come from?locally would $ , thought there was a state code that special public districts had to take the lowest bidder. Ap- parently there are leeways We have a limit on our bids where the Board does not have to vote on bids. When it co mes to bids under $10,000, it would not matter as code does not ap- ply because the Board does not vote for lowest bid. But anything $10,000 and over, we must a bidder. go out to bid and award to the lowest responsibl sect to a local • Contracts that we do not have to go to bid on, we have some latitude with respect preference for profession al services such as engineering, architecture, construction project management, financial ad ministrative, and accounting. Contracts can be awarded based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications. Where demonstrated competence and professional qual ifications are basically equal, we may be able to use a local preference tie breaker. • a tie breaker- are we opening ourselves up to being chat- Using the local preferenc e as could adopt a olicy that is suggested through government code. It sets a lenged. The Board P P level of protection. Not just based on qualifications.Rate pay he viability of a payer benefit. Our revenue is solely on rates_ Any time you enhance t Y community, it benefits all rate payers ers of a district. it is not a direct tie, not black and white like pp tax dollars. Good to support the economic viability of a community. The community members will benefit-full time or part time property owners.PP ill also help some local • Supportive of the 2-1/2 to 5% range in general. Fallout from this w p ,�- businesses to sharpen hat their pencils, bring in bids that are more competitive— in general keep all our costs down . Fallout from local preference makes it a positive thing to keep local busi- nesses to bring in good bids. 4 Minutes: January 19, 2011 - does everyone want to pay? We are benefitting only Torn about the possible financial impact ry rate payers. So what if the 7 or a couple con tactors or agencies or consultants at cost to all of P Y s. What round. Everyone is 8 times the dollar goes a ry going to pay $8 year to get local services. Tonal each year for a local preference policy. It do rate payers want, do they want to pay additional Y t the worst case scenario if the $2 million of contacts eligible for local pro- 8 a g could be up to $ o d. Like the tie breaker pro- curements with a 5/o allowance happene aspect. Ry mall. Encourage local people arel be used, but something for rare occasion. Will be s uld be lower. le to and create competition. Maybe overall costs co • There coul d be a nexus with rate payer benefit if there is a lot going on. • Logic behind potential reduction in competitive bidding Local preference- P how we are not - nothing specific in the code that authorizes it. Talked about• required to award based on lowest bid, but on demonstrated competence and professional qualification. Codes,do provi de authorityfor agencies to give preference to minority, women ed b each agency). If the Board is inclined owned business, and small businesses (as defined Y May want to limit the to move toward this type of policy, give thought to these other areas y , idea to local because small does not always equate to local. • Keep the dollars in the community ent which comes back to us • Is there an promotional value to the Conservation Departm payers think. Y — bringing out what do the rate pay • What are some of the other Director's thoughts ' e this workshop- do our outreach to get input on this local procurement We did not advertise policy-- what are the thoughts and concerns of the rate payers • Great idea to get feedback always- how would we do this • How do wed raw the lines- North Lake Tahoe or TDPUD service area, rate payers community as to w • There is a lot of promotion in theY here you spend your dollars on local to bu local services and a lot of people in the community are trying y Do we want to s p local end u to the worst case scenario of$100,000 a year to buy • p • It would be helpful if we picked the 5% number where this local preference policy would have applied over the last two years. The reason we are talking about this is the janitorial contract that was so close. I do not remember another instance where there was that closeness occurring that the Board heard about. ould constitute a difference of less than • Believe if used 5% that local preference contracts w $10,000 per year • Need to discuss how to put together a criteria • Look at what others have done • In putting together the policy for Sierra County, I went to Nevada County, Placer County and Town of Truckee. Took three good, proven, time tested documents, used them as models. Not that hard to adapt to our District, but I also acknowledge there is no other District like ours that does this. Empower staff to come back to the Board with a draft policy and put it out to the public for a test • Provide staff with parameters to define local in the policy a Coun- We do serve custom ers in Placer County- so should local is not dust limited to Nevada ty- need to be a rate payer be rate payers- or go so far as employees also which would add one • Only owners need to p Y more layer of complexity ' sses with a valid resale license, rate payer or located within service • Local could be busine area of the District • Bidders need to be located in the District service area • How do business licenses work • Local means in the service area, office and or owner within the District, rate payer or physical location served by the PUD Minutes: January 19, 2011 5 • Use a sampling of 10 business es that this policy might apply to or fit into our criteria ... • Policy can evolve over time • Proceed cautiously and in small steps Do a p will be defining the policy and . public forum at the third workshop; second workshop defining local a helpful • A few examples of businesses would b P _ istin District vendors we have Simple number of local vendors that would fit in this policy ex g used before to understand what kind of wide spread impact this could have See draft policy based on comments, oppo rtunity ortunity to patch through at Board level and then • public forum at another meeting • Make special effort to reach out to the Truckee Chamber as they are the messenger who can make this work • ions who can provide input- get as much public input as And contact any other organ izat possible before the second workshop DISTRICT HEADQUARTER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE S BUILDING ENERGY AUDIT This d the Head uarters building. item involves a discussion regarding the Enovity Report an q Kathy Neus gave a presentation: customers • District has many energy efficiency programs for • Enovity hired in November 2009 • Goals of the Report o Identify opportunities to save energy and money o Identify operational /maintenance improvements o Identify cost effective capital improvements • Enovity completed assessment April 2010 • Main focus areas of the assessment o Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM) o Capital Measures (CM) o Operations and Maintenance Measures (O&M) o Occupant Comfort Measures (OCM) • Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM) o EEM 1-3 Improve building heat ■ Isolate non-operating boiler ■ Install automatic stack damper ■ Adjust gas pressure ■ EEM 41nsulate garage doors ■ EEM 5-8 Install occupancy sensors • Occupancy lighting control in warehouse • Occupancy lighting control in garages • Occupancy lighting control in O&M offices • Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM) o EEM 9-10 Install programmable thermostats ■ Garages and warehouse o EEM 11 Install circulation fans in warehouse • Capital Measures (CM) o CM 1 Replace boilers o CM 2 Install whole building control system • Operations and Maintenance (O&M) o O&M 1-6 Repair& operational control of fan coils Minutes: January 19, 2011 6 ■ Repair Taco valves Rep • air actuators, install gravity dampers/ventilation grilles � ■ Insure operation during occupied hours ■ Designate single person for thermostat control ■ Repair fan coils in Exercise Room and warehouse offices o O&M 7 Repair boiler controls o O&M 8 Repair warehouse dampers o O&M 9 Re-enable CO2 sensor control • Occupant Comfort Measures (OCM) o OCM 1 Install building exhaust system o OCM 2 Repair& rebalance air delivery system o OCM 3-5 Install building cooling system ■ Install evaporative cooling in Administrative offices ■ Install mechanical cooling equipment ■ Install evaporative cooling in warehouse o Roof replacement and installation of additional insulation There was no public input. Board discussion: ood report that highlight opportunities and equipment broken • Enovity is a g P • Summary of issues is linked to measures • Predictive versus preventative • Rebalance of air and water Will more be done for additional ventilation- building exhaust system • Why aren't certain things not working • Gravity dampers- do now or after work on cooling design What about stratification fans in warehouse • Infrared heaters are efficient • Keep the Board in the loop with progress WATER METER PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT & WATER USAGE TRENDS This item involves a discussion regarding rdin the water meter project report and water usage trends. Neil Kaufman gave a presentation: District be in reading all water meters installed since 1992 and • AB 2572 requires that the D g commence billing on a volumetric basis by January 2010filled on a • AB 2572 also requires that all connections be equipped with water meters and b volumetric basis by January 1, 2025 Is to rovide an automated • In Summer of 2008, the District issued a request for proposa p meter reading system (five proposals received) Phase 1 to • In September 2008, the Board awarded a contract for the Pilot Program ( ) Measurement Control Systems (MCS) • In June of 2009, the Phase 2 contract was awarded to MCS o installation of about 6,750 meters o Total contract authorization was $2.44 million o In May of 2010, the Phase 3 contract was awarded to MCS o Installation of about 4,735 meters o Total contract authorization was $1.62 million B tailed • Both contracts were completed in November 2010; a total of 10,777 meters ins Minutes: January 19, 2011 7 o 651 commercial 0 10,126 residential ' o 86 percent of customers • There were 1,637 locations where a meter could not be installed. Locations are the "Red Flag" list o Meter box was buried and/or could not be located fence or similar o Meter box was paved over or located under a deck, large rocks, tree, obstruction o No meter box, only a curb stop o Meter box was too small, too deep or damaged o Excessive groundwater o Broken/inoperable valves • Red Flag list locations Quantity antity 122 46 Armstrong/Gateway46 Donner Lake 155 Downtown/Olympic Heights Glenshire/Hirschdale 627 Prosser/Northeast 134 Sierra Meadows/Ponderosa Palisades 146 Tahoe Donner 388 Commercial (Various Locations) 19 • Red Flag list eter box installation crew with Water Department field staff o Create three-person m for rocurement of meter boxes, pipe materials & other hardware o Issue bid documents p 1 0 Begin work in Glenshire in Summer 201 o Goal of 350 to 400 installations per year o Anticipated completion in 2014 • Lessons Learned o About 600 customers do not have meter boxes o Ab out 125 customers where the meter box could not be located r o About 800 customers where condition of existing facilities prevented installation of mete • After initial installation, significant number of customers had a leak somewhere after the meter box o Leaks were as large as 10 gallons per minute o Leaks typically occurred in four areas ■ Irrigation systems ■ Stop and drain valves ■ Toilets ■ Customer-owned service laterals o Some leaks pre-dated installation of the meter o Others occurred after installation of the meter • Currently, about 6.5 percent of customers have a lea • Stop & Drain Valves o Largest cause of leaks in Winter o Valves have a 90" rotation ■ Full open (00 position) ■ Full closed (900 position) ■ Partially open (anyplace between 00 and 900) o A partially open valve will create a leak of up to 5 gpm o Considerable staff time required in dealing with this issue 8 Minutes: January 19, 2011 o Water Department has developed a handout explaining how a stop & drain valve works Broken Pipes istrict to be ro-active in regards to pipe breaks & large leaks o New AMR system allows D p work da o Leaks are often identified during the following Y o Customers are notified by telephone if possible g o Leaks as large as 20 gpm have been found on residential properties 0 Prior to AMR system, leaks could go undetected for weeks • Customer Information System (CIS) corrections o Significant problems with multi-unit residential buildings ■ g Multiple meters feeding a single residential structure ■ Developer/builder often provided erroneous information regarding which meter serves which unit required lengthy telephone conversations and/or field verification ■ Resolution g Y ■ 198 out of 687 meters (29 percent)were assigned incorrectly 0 About a dozen illegal irrigation connections were identified o Billingwas started or the connection was disconnected • Significant reduction in Winter-time water usage Year Jan-Feb Water Usage 2007 4.11 mgd 2008 3.57 mgd 2009 3.42 mgd 2010 3.08 mgd • This reduction is attributed to two main factors o Replacement of about 54,500 feet of old pipeline ° Y AMR system has allowed identification of customer side leaks �. • Fiscal Impact o Phase 2 contract authorization was $2.44 million ■ About $2.06 million has been spent o Phase 3 contract authorization was $1.62 million ■ About$1.39 million has been spent o For 2011 ■ Direct expenditure of about $880,00 is anticipated ■ 400 installations at $2,200 each ■ Cost includes parts, materials, District field labor& equipment ■ Additional costs for administration, engineering & management ■ Total cost of about$1,0007000 expected o For 2012 through 2014, similar cost of about$1,000,000 is ex p o Total project cost of about$7.5 million • Funding Sources o Reserve for Future Meters Fund ■ Balance of$1.3 million at start of project ■ All funds have been spent o Water Meter Surcharge ■ $5 per customer per month ■ Expires at end of 2013 ■ To date, $1.5 million has been collected ■ Additional $2.3 million is anticipated ■ Total of$3.8 million o Remaining $2.4 million cost to be funded from rate monies or reserves No public input 9 Minutes: January 19, 2011 Board discussion: • Change in water use: 1 million gpd1694 gpm-great reduction- successful • For the upcoming water meter install project, may be a good idea to use 3 crews: excavation, pipe fitting, restoration • Are there multi-unit structures served by one meter- are these part of the last phase • Good to see only 6 11 2% on leak rate; Tahoe City PUD was in the 25% range initially and after two years, were down to 6% models should be replaced • Many customers do not understand the Stop & Drain_ some older with a newer one • 300 to 400 meters installed per year is ambitions- good goal • Looking forward to see progress report at the end of the year • State mandate impact on the District customers is positive and a benefit to the community • Original st aff estimate for the water meter project was 10 million; it is now 7.,5 million; am very pleased as under the original projection; faster, better and cost less p • Summer water consumption- recall high point versus current; we are saving 2 to 4 million gallons per day • If save 2 million gallons per day, how much does that save on electricity • What is the typical well production • What is the horsepower of medium well • How did you figure the order of the Red Flags- hard ones first or last What about the ones with no meter box • What is a stop & drain life span • How much money does this project need to finish • Should we slow the project down to match the revenues • District staff will do the remaining installs • How long does it take the District to contact someone about a leak • If there is a leak, why not put a notice in a red box on the bill • Future cost to install Red Flags is about 1 million per year- this should not create additional labor costs ROUTINE BUSINESS TREASURER REPORT: DECEMBER 2010 ' ursements: Director Hemig moved, and Director Laliotis seconded, that the Board Approval of disbursements: approve the December 2010 disbursements report. ROLL CALL: All Directors by a show of hands. SO MOVED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 159 2010 Director La ,liotis moved and Director Hillstrom seconded, that the Board approve the minutes of December 15, 2010. ROLL CALL: All Directors by a show of hands. SO MOVED. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.89 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY: 14630 GLENSHIRE DRIVE APN 49-011-31; DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR: GENE RAL MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: APPOINTED AGENT; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS 10 Minutes: January 19, 2011